memex

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: keyword search, specific chat retrieval, chronological browsing, semantic similarity search, terminal session ingestion, and device synchronization. No overlap exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., search_chats, get_chat, list_recent_chats), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a memory management server. Each tool serves a distinct need without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers search, retrieval, ingestion, and synchronization comprehensively. A minor gap is the lack of delete or edit operations for memory, but core workflows are well supported.
Average 4.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 97 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details the incremental scan, file sources, skipping unchanged sessions, and that it captures up to what Claude Code has flushed. Also describes return value structure. Highly transparent for a read/index operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with paragraphs, bullet points, and examples. Front-loaded with main action. Could be slightly trimmed, but overall efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete given no parameters and existence of output schema. Covers behavior, file locations, performance characteristic (cheap), return structure, and follow-up action (sync_now). No gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description provides context but no parameter details needed. Schema coverage is 100% (empty schema).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it indexes local Claude Code/terminal sessions into Memex with specific verbs and resources. Mentions similar functionality to 'memex ingest-claude-code' but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_chats or get_chat; however, the purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly lists when to use: 'when the user asks to index / capture / save their terminal or Claude Code work' with concrete examples including Spanish phrases. Also recommends following with sync_now for multi-device sync. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but covers key usage clearly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It notes chronological order and recency, but does not disclose behavioral details like whether only metadata or full content is returned, pagination behavior, or rate limits. With an output schema present, return value details are covered, but behavioral transparency is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is tightly written with no wasted words. Uses bullet points for usage guidance, making it scannable. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, and sibling tool differentiation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool (0 required params, 2 optional, output schema exists), the description provides clear purpose, usage scenarios, and alternative tools. It fully covers what an agent needs to decide when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; it merely restates 'Optional filter by origin' which is already in the schema. No new semantic context is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool action: 'Chronological browse of the user's most recent Claude.ai chats.' It uses a specific verb (browse) and resource (recent chats), and distinguishes from sibling `search_chats` by emphasizing chronological scanning vs. targeted search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit 'USE when' section lists concrete user intents (e.g., 'what have I been up to', 'catch up on what I have been thinking about'), and explicitly states when not to use: 'For targeted topic/keyword searches use search_chats.' This provides clear alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains persistent memory, the empty native context, and that data is likely indexed. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but for a read search tool this is adequate. The description adds behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with bullet points. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides specific usage scenarios. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description is thorough. It covers when to use, behavioral details, and parameter context. No gaps remain; the agent has all necessary information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to use different modes (hybrid, semantic, lexical) and the purpose of the repo parameter (ranking boost, not a filter). This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Access to the user's persistent memory: ALL their past Claude.ai chats' and distinguishes it as 'the only tool available to access the user's real history.' This sets a specific verb+resource and differentiates from sibling tools like get_chat and list_recent_chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists scenarios for proactive use (e.g., when user mentions prior conversations, asks about projects) and instructs to invoke the tool before saying things like 'I have no record.' It provides clear context for when to use this vs. alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the internal mechanism (pure vector search, no FTS), the truncation of context to 4000 chars, and the differentiator from keyword search. The read-only nature is implied by 'find' and the context of retrieving related chats. This disclosure is complete for the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is composed of a short introductory sentence, an explanation of internals, and three bullet points for usage. Every sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. The structure is well-organized with clear headings and bullet points, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, vector search, output schema present), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral details, and parameter semantics thoroughly. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. The description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the truncation of 'context' to 4000 chars and noting that 'repo' has the same boost effect as in search_chats. It also clarifies that 'limit' defaults to 5 and max is 50, which is already in the schema but reaffirmed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with 'Find chats related to a free-form context (not to a short query).' This clearly states the verb (find), the resource (chats), and the specific input type (free-form context). It distinguishes from search_chats by noting it accepts long input and uses vector search, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides three explicit 'USE when' scenarios (more like this, pasting long text, proactive suggestions) and two alternatives for other cases (short-keyword -> search_chats, recent chronological -> list_recent_chats). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details that the tool performs a two-way reconcile, propagates already indexed content, and returns JSON with status, peers, and file_sync. It also explains conditions that cause nothing to run (disabled or no target), which fully discloses behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the main action, followed by details on execution, usage guidance, possible returns, and failure conditions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (mentioned in description), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, prerequisites, return structure, and edge cases. It is fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details; the schema coverage is 100% by virtue of no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool syncs Memex with other devices via two-way reconcile with paired peers and shared folder. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like index_terminal_sessions, which is a prerequisite. The verb 'sync' and resource 'Memex with devices' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says when to use (user asks to sync/push/send) and provides prerequisites (sync must be enabled, call index_terminal_sessions for current session). It also explains when nothing runs, offering clear guidance on when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description fully bears the burden. It discloses pagination behavior, token limits, message truncation to 1500 chars, and how to handle long chats. No destructive traits to disclose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (about 150 words) and well-structured with sections. The main purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description covers all needed context: use cases, alternatives, pagination, token limits, message truncation. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds significant value by explaining pagination mechanics, token cap considerations, and practical usage advice like asking for fewer messages for more detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch a specific conversation from history by uuid (with pagination).' It specifies the verb, resource, and key detail. It distinguishes from siblings by indicating this tool is used after searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit 'USE when' and 'DO NOT use' sections, contrasts with search_chats, and gives specific scenarios. The guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dioniipereyraa/memex/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dioniipereyraa/memex)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![memex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dioniipereyraa/memex/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dioniipereyraa/memex)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dioniipereyraa/memex'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server